Friday Sermon from Iran and New York

cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

A moment of silence? At least from Tehran that is how it would appear; in NY however, the Mullahs Supreme Allegiance Branch West, otherwise known as the NY Times Editorial Board is in its usual frothing at the mouth form.

Tehran is quiet from a reporting point of view, which is unusual for a government controlled mouthpiece often overflowing with the propaganda rhetoric of the weeks Friday Prayer Leader. We’ll have to wait and see what next Friday brings to judge whether this lack will become the standard; perhaps their own words are coming back to bite them as they work to hide their faces of evil.

But no sooner does someone finish writing a paragraph and the floodgates are loosed; from Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei led the congregation with:

“Alert and wise Iranian nation, relying on strong faith and resistance, made US project of weakening Islamic Revolution face defeat. The Iranian nation would continue paving the same proud and glorious path, and a time will come when no power would dare to threaten this nation, even in his mind.”

The religio-politico leader also defined US plans following 9/11 by adding:

“The Americans had a multi-dimensional project, aimed at shaping up a pro-Zionist Middle East, but faced defeat at all layers of that project.”

Sometimes too much love can be harmful, but if you so choose visit the Motormouth Mullah for more of his positive message.

Mullahs West for its part continued the assault to strengthen the imagined belief that President Bush is the real enemy in this war and offered the fruits of wisdom with its summation of the week:

“This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.”

It is a shame that in its role as the arbiter of truth the toilet paper believes “Americans” are so easily exhausted by an entire two days of information. Perhaps, as is obvious it is The behind the Times that has issues with the clarity and direction it expected from the testimony and “hours of news conferences and interviews.” When the only thing that would please Mullahs West is what they want to hear, anything short of that is just more smoke, mirrors and clouds.

Beyond the repetition complaining about repetition and various assertive, yet naïve strategies the board did at the least not bash General Petraeus. This was likely due to the lack of this necessity with the discounted full page ad given to the MoveOn group.

Beyond the redun, redundant, redundant and repetitive moaning and alternate propaganda with “cherry picked” remarks and misinformation, Mullahs West did offer up a very revealing sentence that suggests how wrong they really are. In hoping “Mr. Bush would drop the meaningless talk of victory” and the “fiction that the war keeps” Americans safe from terrorism; they offered “credit” to the general for not adopting “that bit of propaganda.”

So used to supporting those in the General Officers club that agree with their perspective, that when a general rightly chooses not to play a role in the larger political snafu; a role mind you that is not the generals to play, that they give him “credit” for doing something he shouldn’t be doing anyway.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely politicians…

Democrats: An End to the War; Short, Bittersweet and the Crux

cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

President Bush spoke for the eighth time on the subject of Iraq this evening; the consensus to most talking heads was it is not much in the neighborhood of new material. A reason for this lack in new material can be attributed to the opposition’s repetition of the past four years; the president is still speaking to the same arguments. This is not to say it is the fault of the Democrats that the president is repetitive, but more in line with yelling in a canyon and hearing an echo in response. Would it be nice if he were to take a new tack? Yes, it would, but it would also be nice if the Democrats tried a new refrain as well.

Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed responded to the president with the same tried and still not true material. A piece of which is “ending this war.” This has basically been the crux to the debate; Democrats and their supporters see this as a “war” and the president and his supporters in this vein see this more as a battle in a “war.” These are two very diametrically opposed views and part of that, which has made the debate all the more difficult to move forward in a way that might reach consensus.

Jack Reed referred to the issue in Iraq as a civil war, which is nothing new; so far so good. Setting aside the implausibility inherent in succeeding at what is being attempted with the numbers employed now, but with fewer troops and/or with new geographical post, we can end “this war.” Senator Reed is not wrong if this is a singular and unique war with no relatives in sight. Where Senator Reed and the Democrats fail is if this is as the president has continuously stated; a front in a greater war, this to the Democrats is the great gamble and one with which they have bet our future on.

In a perfect world with pieces that fit like a jigsaw puzzle, the Democrats might have a chance at completing the image of the cute puppy on the box cover. In another perfect world, as horrifying and pitiful as it would be, were the president wrong, amends could be made; not perfectly mind you with all forgiven, but made nonetheless; take it or leave it. Pride or martyrdom in death, like that sought by our enemy is mistaken but to the greater thinking world, admitting error is possible and more likely by no other nation than the United States; we’re great at proselytizing (think Democrats).

The catch is the more likely scenario. The United States and its allies disengage from the battle in the greater war; redeploy, draw down, withdraw and bring an end to the “war” only to find that we have given massive and unimaginable ground reminiscent of a Hamburger Hill magnified, but the planet is the hill. We then spend decades making up for the loss of momentum that we had within our grasp, yet threw away in our haste to end the “war.”

The preceding regarding battle versus greater war has been said and/or written before by many people, as this is the case, please forgive the repetition; at I have a lot of company.

Petraeus Betray Us, Feinstein Lyin’: Iraq and the Greater War on Terror

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Editors at National Review Online comes this closer, which says it all:

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday dismissed General Petraeus as not an “independent evaluator” of the Iraq war. Everything we’ve heard this year indicates that Petraeus is in fact a cautious and factual evaluator of the surge, but in a sense Feinstein is right — Petraeus is vested in the war, sees it as an important national project, and wants to win. Would that Democrats showed a similar bias.”

There happens to be a lot of great points in this editorial that make it very worthwhile reading as well as more commentary from: Byron York, Michael O’Hanlon, Michael Yon, John Boehner, Mark Hemingway, Fred Kagan, Donald Kagan, W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Michael Barone, William Hawkins, Mark Steyn and James S. Robbins.

So, with the new majority in Washington are we truly to believe that Bush is the whole problem?

On another facet of the war on terror Newt Gingrich visited Fox and Friends this morning, where in part he suggested the U.S. concentrate/debate on the big picture in the war on terror and not just focus on Iraq. This is wise advice as so many speak to the Iraq theater just going away if we withdraw/redeploy; an end to this war.

Iran for some time now has been shelling in the Kurdish north of Iraq; an Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference in Baghdad at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry warned in diplomatese:

“if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily.”

A veiled suggestion to enter Iraq militarily is the first straight forward remark from Iran even though its words reveal its plans daily.

According to the delegation the U.S. has a “double-standard” as:

‘”Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region.”’

This double-standard unfortunately does not reach the heights of the exponentially rising “double-standards” of Iran, but the U.S. has to start somewhere, no?

The conference, which was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry and led by Hoshyar Zebari was attended by the U.S. and other “concerned” neighbors in the region.

We’ve all heard of the calls from many on the Left to bring regional players together in a diplomatic forum (this conference; an example of what they do not see) to bring peace and calm to Iraq. At the conference, Hoshyar Zebari proposed:

“creating a “secretariat” to keep track of the Iraq issues being considered at the meetings.

When it became apparent that the United States and Britain backed Mr. Zebari’s proposal, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others quickly took the floor to shoot the proposal down. The conference ended with the issue unresolved.”

This is a shame, but par for the course. Groups like this don’t appear to have any difficulty when it comes to say, a Durban II; then again, Durban II is in line with Democrat talking points and strategy of reframing the debate with misleading, obfuscation and lies.

The Violence in Anbar has gone down Despite the Surge, NOT Because of the Surge

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Senator Chuck Shill Schumer remarked on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the “Surge” in Iraq and its success to date:

“I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.”

Most would attribute the Senators “rise” to the use of Viagra, however common sense tells us this is not so. To suggest “just the opposite,” of what is actually going on in Iraq as Schumer does is to “cling to straws” when news with even the slightest hint of “good” cannot be allowed. Schumer’s remarks are nothing more than the Iraq debate reframing debate strategy the Democrats have begun prior to Petraeus and Crockers report. We’ve entered September and Harry Reid noticed yesterday that this was the case following the Dems earlier confusion on the calendar a couple months back:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

According to the Shill occasionally good news is allowed to slip out prior to Democrat pre-emptive measures to downplay it:

“We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

MORE HERE…

Non-Sense of the Senate Resolution

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Left Coast via The New York Left Times OpEd page comes the “piece” “Occupation Hazard,” which discusses the future legality of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The legality in question is “the Authority” – which (is) to say “the occupying powers under unified command” – as Iraq’s effective legal government,” as granted under annual Security Council Resolutions.

According to the “piece” the “current mandate expires at the end of December,” and will require renewal. This past June, “the Iraqi Parliament passed a bill requiring that the next renewal should not be made without its advice and consent.”

Were the mandate not renewed it is conceivable that the U.S. would be required to leave Iraq, however, as the author says the “Bush administration is of course unlikely to give too much heed to any Security Council resolution.”

The author believes there is a possibility that if the Iraqi parliament chose not to allow renewal and the U.S. did not depart that this might “matter greatly to the Iraqis, even to the point of becoming the signal for a general uprising of Shiites against foreign forces.” This could then lead to a general uprising against our forces and those included in the multi-national coalition, Iraq finding another friend say Russia or “the most obvious and presumably most willing new partner for Mr. Maliki would be Shiite-dominated Iran.”

If this last were to become the reality while our military was still in Iraq the author theorizes the following:

“should the United States attack Iran pre-emptively? Some in high places favor this, but a pre-emptive American attack on Iran could quickly lead to an Iranian counterattack closing the Straits of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian Gulf. The American forces would then be trapped — both their main supply line and their main evacuation route cut off.”

“It may be time to change the slogan on the yellow ribbon from “support the troops” to “defend the nation.” Rather than see the American army of liberation humiliatingly voted out of Iraq or have its avenue of exit cut off by opportunistic enemies, the Senate should join the Iraqi Parliament, through a “sense of the Senate” resolution, and call for the next Security Council mandate to be one that requires the progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed.”

Would the U.S. truly be cut off from its route of exit were it to strike at Iran? Certainly not without a fight and we can bring that, but “humiliatingly voted out of Iraq?” According to the author the remedy would be for our Senate to follow the lead of the Iraqi parliament and its non-binding resolution with the call for a withdrawal timetable.

The question of what to do were the mandate to require the U.S. presence reversed is not nothing and perhaps if it was to become a reality the U.S. should seriously consider heeding it, especially if Iraq leaned on Iran for support. As unattractive as our leaving too early would be the target area could become that much larger for our military and perhaps the U.S. could not worry so much about collateral damage as the war on terror would take quite a turn to the more violent.

This call for the future mandate of the Security Council to require a “progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed,” is just more of the same Leftist driven NY Times agenda that it and the rest of the msm feels obligated to force down the throat of the U.S. and its citizens. It is the newest tactic in sounding non-agenda like, but is nothing different.

Rambama Will Take Musharraf Down!

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Al Qaeda drew “first blood,” they don’t know who they were messin’ with…

Yesterday, we all got a good laugh when it was revealed that Democrat Presidential aspirant Barack Obama announced he would “invade Pakistan,” if necessary. My post with limited comments didn’t add much as what is there to add to the already ludicrous?

This morning, James S. Robbins has a great take over at NRO on Obama and acting on “actionable intelligence.”

“So President Obama would invade Pakistan? Who would have thought? “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” Obama said at a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama was pinging off a recent New York Times report of an early 2005 mission to apprehend al Qaeda leadership figures in Pakistan, including second banana Ayman al-Zawahiri. The mission was aborted by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld because the operation had grown too large. This alone makes it a good case-study in the failings of bureaucracy; too many components looking to get involved, not enough risk being accepted, not a shining moment for the partisans of Defense Transformation.”

If anyone wants, link back with an image of “Rambama” let’s see what we can put together.

Riaz Hassan, the Pope, the Taliban and 22 South Korean Hostages

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

According to an editorial written by Australian professorial fellow and emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, Riaz Hassan, (“Interrupting a history of tolerance?”):

“The Zionist project for a Jewish state was predicated on centuries of Jewish sufferings in Europe.

Anti-Semitism was not an entrenched characteristic of Islamic ideology and history until the 20th century. Without doubt, European anti-Semitic writings and their translation into Arabic during the 19th century and German National Socialism in the 20th century were instrumental in instigating anti-Semitism throughout Arab lands.”

Strange revelation, not so much from Hassan, but more due to its publication in The Korea Herald today, following the extension of the deadline set by the Taliban for the release of 22 South Koreans for roughly the same number of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pope Benedict recently chimed in on the hostage situation that may lead to the murder in cold blood of the 22 Christian missionaries calling the exploitation of innocent people as a “grave violation of human dignity:”

“Unfortunately the usual practice of exploiting innocent people for their own ends is spreading among armed groups. It is a grave violation of human dignity that clashes with every elementary norm of civility and rights and gravely offends divine law.”

Hopefully this will not exacerbate the situation as according to Professor Hassan in the September 26, 2006 issue of the Daily Times of Pakistan in his “VIEW: The Jihad and the West:”

“The need for a dialogue between Islam and the West has never been more acute than now, but Pope Benedict XVI’s recent description of Islam as “evil and inhuman” is clearly not the best approach. In his lecture on Faith and Reason at Regensburg University, the pope quoted the 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel II Palaeologus as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad [peace be upon him] brought was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.” Notwithstanding the Vatican’s statement that the pope meant no offence and, in fact, desired dialogue, in the eye of many Muslims his remarks only reinforced a false and biased view of Islam — not conducive to dialogue.”

In another example of intolerance toward radical Islam the South Korean government has asked YouTube to remove video clips from 2004 that “showed Koreans condemning Islam after a Korean translator was killed in Iraq in 2004, and a Korean woman preaching Christianity to a group of Afghan children. It was not disclosed who posted the videos, which have now been taken down.”

Further in the effort to avoid provoking the Taliban, “the Korean Government Information Agency asked Youtube last Friday to delete the content on the grounds that it falsely portrays Christians and Koreans alike.” The Christian portrayal refers to a quote from a YouTube post that said, “I am Korean myself and right now 90 percent of Korean public also think that those stupid Korean Christians deserve what has happened.“

So in the effort to bring the 22 hostages home safely a view of the world that the likes of the Taliban most violently represents is wiped from the public record.

Good luck with real negotiations.

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Friday Sermon from Iran

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Nothing but tough love from Tehran’s substitute Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati this morning. Speaking to the congregation of recent talks with the U.S. he said:

“Iran is ready to do whatever the Iraqi people and government demand to provide Iraq with security. In the talks, we tried to make the Americans understand their mistakes in Iraq. The Americans were frankly reminded about their mistakes in Iraq and they were asked why they were still lingering in an Islamic country which has an elected government.”

“There is a collection of hooligans in Iraq now. If the Americans and the British were not in Iraq, the government in Baghdad could deal with these terrorists and mischief-makers.”

“The more the occupiers remain in Iraq, the more loss they would inflict on themselves. They are getting more and more hated by the world people and they would eventually have to withdraw from Iraq with shame.”

The minister of love also made note of the anniversary of the “33-day war” between “Lebanese Hezbollah” and the “Zionist regime,” and said:

“The victory was not only for Hezbollah but also for Islam and the Muslims. The Lebanese are for a government which would not be a puppet regime and do not let the dirty Zionists bully them.”

“Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic government in Iraq are also the winners.”

Praise Allah, Mohammed (PBUH) and all that rot.

Believing the Worst Requires Too Little Imagination

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

From Wednesday’s NRO, Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers.”